Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:53 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,643 Year: 3,680/19,786 Month: 675/1,087 Week: 44/221 Day: 15/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 115 (460748)
03-18-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O.

The only way you can have something at T=O is to believe it is there.

OK, so nothing exists at T=0, what follows from your hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:47 PM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 32 of 115 (460750)
03-18-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by teen4christ
03-18-2008 2:04 PM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
Hi t4c,

teen4christ writes:

That's just it. We don't know anything was there. Human intuition, however, tells us that since there was something there a little bit later, there probably must have been something there right before that point.

You should have seen how these guys pounded me when I mentioned before in another thread.

teen4christ writes:

Suppose you are walking along in a forest.

If I am in a forest I would expect trees to be there.

If I am looking nothing I expect nothing to be there. And since science can tell me nothing I have to guess. Add an assumption, or just have faith that something was there.

But if it was, where did it come from?

Now I got to make more assumptions.

I have mentioned assumptions several times so I will now quote Hawking. Herepage 40.

There is, however, a second and more serious objection. Cosmology can not predict anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions.
Without such an assumption, all one can say is that things are as they are now because they were as they were at an earlier stage.

Hawking said these assumptions were necessary to predict anything.

In other words we have to presume certain things existed.

You call it anything you want too.

As I have stated throughout the only way it can be there is if I believe it is there and that is faith.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 2:04 PM teen4christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 6:04 PM ICANT has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 33 of 115 (460751)
03-18-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O.

First, I'm not sure why you keep typing the letter O instead of the numeral 0. Is this part of the learning disorder that you continue to exhibit?

At any rate, you are correct. So far there is no evidence that anything existed at t=0. As far as we know, the universe may have began at t=2.3 x 10-50. Or the universe may have began precisely at t=10-43, although it would be a remarkable coincidence of the universe began at the precise moment when our current understanding of the laws of physics begin to be valid. In fact, so remarkable a coincidence that I think that it would be a matter of faith in its commonly accepted sense to believe that this is when the universe began.


Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 34 of 115 (460752)
03-18-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rahvin
03-18-2008 5:05 PM


Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

We have evidence that the Universe exists after T=0. It is perfectly logical to conclude from that objective, observable evidence that it is highly likely "something" also exists at T=0.

If we go on that logic then it should exist prior to T=O.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 5:05 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 5:44 PM ICANT has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1267 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 35 of 115 (460755)
03-18-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
03-18-2008 5:37 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

quote:
We have evidence that the Universe exists after T=0. It is perfectly logical to conclude from that objective, observable evidence that it is highly likely "something" also exists at T=0.

If we go on that logic then it should exist prior to T=O.

How surprising - the same exact misconception that you demonstrated three threads ago. You'll note that I explained in greater detail in the same exact post you just quoted, but you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just ignored it.

Time is part of the Universe. You cannot possibly have coordinates of time for which the Universe does not exist. It's like saying there is a latitude/longitude where there is no Earth! The coordinates T=0, T=10^-43, T=1, etc, are all locations in one dimension of the Universe. To say that the Universe may not have existed at a coordinate of the Universe itself is pure nonsense. It's like saying there is a place on my body where I don't exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:37 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:51 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 36 of 115 (460756)
03-18-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
03-18-2008 5:13 PM


Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

OK, so nothing exists at T=0, what follows from your hypothesis?

Well I actually believe something exists at T=0 and even prior to T=0.
And Yes I believe it by faith.

I refer to it as pure energy and from that energy everything that ever was and ever will be had it's beginning. This same energy is what keeps things as they are.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 5:13 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 5:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 6:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 37 of 115 (460757)
03-18-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
03-18-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Well I actually believe something exists at T=0 and even prior to T=0.

That's funny. I actually don't believe that anything exists at t=0 or before t=0. Since we don't have a theory that explains what may have been happening at these alleged points in time, I honestly don't know what was happening.

I guess that's the difference between the faith-based approach you use and the more pragmatic empirical approach that certain others have.


Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 38 of 115 (460758)
03-18-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rahvin
03-18-2008 5:44 PM


Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

Time is part of the Universe. You cannot possibly have coordinates of time for which the Universe does not exist.

Sure you could all you would have to do is call it eternity.

I like that better than I do imaginary time.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 5:44 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 39 of 115 (460759)
03-18-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
03-18-2008 5:47 PM


Well I actually believe something exists at T=0 and even prior to T=0.
And Yes I believe it by faith.

OK, do you agree that the hypothesis 'nothing* exists' leads to no hypothesis whatsoever, other than perhaps 'nothing exists now'? Since there is something now, would you agree that on the face of it - the hypothesis is falsified and we might get better understanding by theorizing possibilities where 'something' exists?

By developing a hypothesis, there is no requirement to commit to that hypothesis as an article of faith. The only requirement is, does the hypothesis lead to predictions that can be tested? If so, let's test them and see what happens.

If you disagree, why? If you do not, where is the necessity of faith? Where is the believing something without evidence?

* For simple definitions of nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3879 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 40 of 115 (460760)
03-18-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
03-18-2008 5:28 PM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
ICANT writes
quote:
You should have seen how these guys pounded me when I mentioned before in another thread.

I've skimmed through that thread. From what I was able to glean from it, they pounded you because of your persistence to treat the word "singularity" as a thing rather than a mathematical description of a state of complete unknown.

quote:
If I am in a forest I would expect trees to be there.

Well, ok. Scratch the forest part. Suppose you're walking in a desert or an arid environment. The analogy stands.

quote:
If I am looking nothing I expect nothing to be there. And since science can tell me nothing I have to guess. Add an assumption, or just have faith that something was there.

I think this is where other people might have a problem with the way you are presenting this.

Many, if not most, people would agree that not all assumptions are faith based. Barrack Obama appears racially black to me so I assume that at some point in the past his ancestors must have originated from Africa. This assumption is not faith based at all. It is based on intuition from my previous experiences.

From our previous experiences, if we've seen something at, say, point B and it is also moving toward point C, we could safely assume that at some point in the past the thing was at point A. This is not faith. This is simply an assumption based on human intuition that is derived from past experiences.

From the evidence, we know that at very near T=0, the universe was very dense and very hot. Human intuition that is derived from past experiences would suggest that there must have been something right before this point that is very near T=0.

Please do not confuse this type of assumption to faith based assumption. An example of faith based assumption is the belief in angels. There has been absolutely no physical evidence of the existence of angels. While some people have claimed to have seen angels, most have not. The belief in them, however, persist. This assumption of their existence is faith based.

quote:
But if it was, where did it come from?

Your guess is as good as mine.

quote:
You call it anything you want too.

Well, not really.

quote:
As I have stated throughout the only way it can be there is if I believe it is there and that is faith.

I must say that you have a very odd perception of what the word faith means.

Perhaps this will clear it up. Many, if not most, people would agree with me that if I come across a fallen tree with burnt marks, especially after a stormy night, that my believing that lightning struck that tree down is not a faith based assumption. Do you dispute this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:33 PM teen4christ has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 41 of 115 (460761)
03-18-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Chiroptera
03-18-2008 4:54 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Chiroptera,

Chiroptera writes:

Why bother even posting at all if you're not going to say anything?

You were answering Modulous and I thought you said you liked to read. So I pointed out this article. I thought the article was pretty good.

It explains the redshift and does away with the need for dark matter.

So if this is correct Nernst, Finlay-Freundlich, Max Born and Louis
de Broglie was correct and their theory of a Universe in dynamical
equilibrium without expansion and without continuous creation of matter, would be the correct Theory.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 4:54 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by fallacycop, posted 03-19-2008 5:33 AM ICANT has responded

    
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3879 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 42 of 115 (460763)
03-18-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:31 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
ICANT writes
quote:
What would happen if we could find something to make Max Born a little more of a prophet?

Discovery of H2, in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000



Could you provide a link?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:31 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:38 PM teen4christ has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 43 of 115 (460765)
03-18-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by teen4christ
03-18-2008 6:04 PM


Re-Taking a Stab
Hi t4c,

teen4christ writes:

I must say that you have a very odd perception of what the word faith means.

This is my definition of faith.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

teen4christ writes:

Perhaps this will clear it up. Many, if not most, people would agree with me that if I come across a fallen tree with burnt marks, especially after a stormy night, that my believing that lightning struck that tree down is not a faith based assumption. Do you dispute this?

That is a normal assumption. But if you did not examine the tree stump and the burn mark because time was too short or for any other reason and went on your merry way believing it was caused by the lightning the night before you would be accepting that fact on faith.

If you examined the stump and it was a fresh break then you examined the burn mark and found it to be fresh, then you would have pretty good circumstantial evidence.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 6:04 PM teen4christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 6:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 48 by bluescat48, posted 03-18-2008 7:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 03-19-2008 10:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 44 of 115 (460766)
03-18-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by teen4christ
03-18-2008 6:19 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi t4c,

teen4christ writes:

Could you provide a link?

Sorry thought I did.

Here it is.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 6:19 PM teen4christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 7:08 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 47 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 7:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3879 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 45 of 115 (460768)
03-18-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
03-18-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
ICANT writes
quote:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Some would argue that this is a useless definition because of its cryptic nature that could be applied to just about anything. From this definition, I could very well say that our knowledge of the aromatic nature of benzene is based on faith.

quote:
That is a normal assumption. But if you did not examine the tree stump and the burn mark because time was too short or for any other reason and went on your merry way believing it was caused by the lightning the night before you would be accepting that fact on faith.

1 - I did examine the burn marks.
2 - There was a thunder storm last night.
3 - The tree is fallen with no visible sawing mark.

quote:
If you examined the stump and it was a fresh break then you examined the burn mark and found it to be fresh, then you would have pretty good circumstantial evidence.

And circumstancial evidence for a very dense and very hot early universe as well as the inflationary nature of the universe is exactly what we have.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just being difficult on purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019